Printable View
BGB Securities – Murray Arenson $1.35
Janco Partners – Martin Pyykkonen $1.40
Barrington – James Goss $1.25
Lazard – Barton Crooked $1.35
Miller Tabak – David Joyce $1.25
Wunderdich Sec – Matt Hooligan $1.50
Standard & Poors – Tuna Amobi $1.50
Maxim – John Tinker $1.40
RBC – David Bank $1.00
“Near-term, profitability should lag due to SAC ramp ahead of gross additions, but that will likely ‘even out’ over time,” Bank explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius Roadkill
Using extraordinary restraint and biting my tongue. :D
Nope, I can't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius Roadkill
I could agree with David Bank here if the facts did not get in the way of his projection. What I mean by that is, HOW MANY SUBS DID THEY GET IN THIS LAST QUARTER AGAIN??????? Thats right 582,000 (most of which came from OEM sales). Soooooooo, then what happen to SAC? when that huge number came in, it must have gone up huge, RIGHT??????? No it barely moved, when you consider that SAC has come down as much as 10 to 12 dollars over the last two years, 2 dollars is not that much for it to go up with them adding not only 582,000 subs but the actual number is alot higher when considering churn.
Have you had a chance to check out David Bank's big SAC?Quote:
Originally Posted by julietoo
And in addition to his big SAC . . consider this from the Wall Street Journal:Quote:
Originally Posted by john
"Companies often have tax losses. But experts say it is unusual that they are potentially a firm's most valuable asset, as with Sirius. The only asset that is comparable is the company's collection of radio wave spectrum licenses granted by the Federal Communications Commission valued at $2 billion, according to a Sirius securities filing. "That's uncommon that the [tax loss] would be ... the most valuable asset," said Robert Willens, who runs a corporate tax advisory firm."
Yet even with his big SAC being exposed, David Bank makes no adjustment for the contributory value of NOL's.
Go figure . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius Roadkill
Why SRK, are you trying to goad me into saying something I"ll
regret?
A lady never tells. ;)
Julie
Isn't there a law against exposing a big SAC? :D
Bank's big SAC has been all over the internet lately. I'm sure Bank has shown his big SAC to the Capital Markets clients at RBC. Tyler saw Bank's big SAC but as far as I know has never commented on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by julietoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius Roadkill
Banks needs to learn to keep it zipped. He's liable to get his
big SAC cut off.
Julie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius Roadkill
The only reason they are valued so highly in SIRIXMs case is because most analyst see the profit is coming to a head and they will need those NOL's to keep its huge profits they see coming down the pike.
I cant help but feel that SIRIXM is at that tipping point that Mel talk about ho so long ago (in a Jim Cramer show), Because the over head is stable that there will be a point when the new subscribers coming on board are at almost no real cost to the company and what you will see then is a big jump in the FCF to the company.
It looks like David Bank's big SAC is starting to effect his work . . .
His $1.00 price target has already cost RBC clients an 11% return in a market where finding yield is challenging.
Older post now updated to reflect James Goss revised target from $1.25 to $1.50
BGB Securities Murray Arenson $1.35
Janco Partners Martin Pyykkonen $1.40
Barrington James Goss $1.50
Lazard Barton Crooked $1.35
Miller Tabak David Joyce $1.25
Wunderdich Sec Matt Hooligan $1.50
Standard & Poors Tuna Amobi $1.50
Maxim John Tinker $1.40
Mean: $1.41 Median: $1.40 Mode: $1.50
David Bank, RBC: $1.00
Near-term, profitability should lag due to SAC ramp ahead of gross additions, but that will likely even out over time, Bank explained.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...aughing021.gif
I once called David Bank "clueless" in a post I made to one of Tyler's news stories in which he cited David Bank's $1.00 price target (October 2010).
Tyler then challenged me to make my case . . . which I did.
But I'm not done.
David Bank went on CNBC with Erin Burnett and cited Viacom as a comp for Siri . . . it wasn't a comp then and it certainly isn't a comp now . . . and David Bank should know better
Read this from today's NY Post:
It's a DVD-isaster
Slumping movie sales stymie Viacom
By CLAIRE ATKINSON
With Post Wire Services
Last Updated: 12:38 AM, February 4, 2011
Posted: 11:33 PM, February 3, 2011
Snooki and the rest of the "Jersey Shore" cast couldn't save Viacom in the latest quarter.
The media giant, which houses cable network MTV and the Paramount film studio, said profit declined 12 percent in the fiscal first quarter after higher cable ratings and film revenue failed to make up for slumping DVD sales.
Revenue fell a more-than-expected 5 percent, sending the shares down in early trading before rebounding. Class A shares of the company, controlled by Sumner Redstone, fell 47 cents to close at $50.04. It's 'B' shares fell 42 cents to $43.55 in New York Stock Exchange trading.
Viacom's quartlerly sales missed analysis' expectations as weak DVD revenue from films like "Shrek"offset "Jersey Shore"-diven cable games. Much of the decline was attributed to a 77 percent drop in profit at Paramount as DVD sales of "How to Train Your Dragon" and the latest "Shrek" faced tough comparisons with year-earlier hits "Transformers," "Star Trek" and "GI Joe."
Despite a strong box-office that benefited from films like "True Grit" and "The Fighter," revenue at the Hollywood unit fell 16 percent, dragged down by a 44 percent drop in home entertainment.
At the media networks division that includes MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, revenue rose 6 percent, reflecting rising ad sales. Lifted by higher ratings for MTV's "Jersey Shore," US ad sales rose 10 percent. "Jersey Shore" has posted record ratings in its third season, which began last month and ranked No. 1 in the 18-49 age group advertisers most want, beating broadcast networks, MTV said last week. On Jan. 25 MTV ordered a fourth season.
Despite the cable ad growth, Viacom still lagged it peers. Time Warner's global cable ad sales grew 21 percent, while News Corp.'s grew 12 percent in the same period. News Corp. also owns The Post.
"Some of our competitors had the benefit of some pretty strong sports programming in that quarter," Viacom COO Tom Dooley said in response to questions about its performance relative to rivals.
Net income fell to $610 million, or $1 a share, from $694 million, or $1.14, a year ago. Revenue fell to $3.83 billion, below analysts' average estimate of $4.08 billion.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz1D2uxlv00
Exhibit A:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?vid...6844869&play=1
fishsticks, orange soda, lime green jello, time for Wapner
Welp, David Bank is back in the news again . . . no reason for me to provide the link; it's the same old uninformed blather spewing from his orafice.
When you read anything from David Bank, consider the source:
- same guy who said that SAC would ramp ahead of OEM improvement: WRONG
- same guy who tried to characterize Viacom as a comp for Siri: WRONG
- same guy who called Siri "a really expensive stock" when trading at $1.26: WRONG
- same guy who had a $1.00 Price Target when average of peers was $1.41: WRONG
So now what do we read?
Bank wants David Frear to come hold his hand and help him do a connect-the-dots analysis!
Sorry, it doesn't work that way . . . you get paid to analyze. Frear has given you the penetration rate, he's given you the take rate, he's given you the churn rate, he's given you your SAC . . . what the F else do you need??
What? You don't like Frear's SAAR rate?? Doesn't seem to bother any of the other analysts.
If you think Frear is being too conservative . . . here's what you do . . . first you quit whining and grow a pair of balls to match your bloated SAC, then you do a little research and you come up with your own SAAR forecast . . . the same way your peers do. Would that be asking too much.
Then, you just might want to take the time to actually read the transcript of precisely what Mel said about the "Leverage Ratio" and where they intend to take it and how that connects-up with returning capital to shareholders in 2012.
. . . . and one more thing, for years we had to read David Bank touting "the ubiquity of Internet Radio" as a factor in his price target; now he tells us Siri may simply clone a Pandora-like service. No shit Sherlock! You're a little late to the dance buddy . . . people in these forums figured that out a long time ago . . .
now go sharpen your pencil and try again
SRK - any updates on the size of David Bank's SAC ?
Yes, RBC may soon have to install a handicap ramp so the guy can wheel it up to his office.Quote:
Originally Posted by sxminvestor
He's a strange dude, that's for sure . . . can't figure out what it is with this guy and his unnatural affection for Viacom.
Here's the Nutty Professor himself touting Viacom on CNBC:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000015453